Why do most super muscular guys punch weak?

[KnightTemplar]

Conversely, Rumble, Woodley, Lawler, Manhoef, Carwin, etc etc etc are all jacked and can knock your head to the third row.

Muscle size and strength dont necessarily equate to knockouts, but they dont hinder them either.

/Thread

 

[Sano]

Again, then you should refute it instead of parroting it.

It's exactly as I said. All other things being equal, the stronger person wins. That doesn't overstate the importance of strength. It doesn't say it's not the same for speed or endurance. It doesn't mean training skill is less important.

The only thing you did was agree, and then state these superfluous items that I didn't mention, and then act as if you disagreed with the words you mistakenly added to my post. You're wasting space doing that.

If you are not insinuating that max strenght is the superior attribute does that not make your statement completely redundant? I can understand Kiwis frustration with the "everything else being equal" nonsense argument.

Conversely, Rumble, Woodley, Lawler, Manhoef, Carwin, etc etc etc are all jacked and can knock your head to the third row.

Muscle size and strength dont necessarily equate to knockouts, but they dont hinder them either.

Rumble is geneticly gifted and a pretty big guy, but he's not super muscular. Lawler is not either. None of them really has that BB thing going on. Manhoef and Woodley is getting there, Carwin is huge. His power is freakish.

And yes, size can hinder you at a certain point. Not that anyone natural would likely reach that point. I'm not saying that the OP is right, but my post is more in line with the rest of the thread. More strenght does not necessarily equal more punching power and working on that attribute too much might even be detrimental to the overall game of a fighter.

EDIT: I think it's important to put this discussion in the context of the obsession with focusing on/prioritizing the compound lifts. As I mentioned earlier, obviously being weak is no bueno, but I have yet to train with a high level MMA fighter who is not strong, regardless of if they do compounds or not. Surprisingly strong actually.

 

[Cmart]

If you are not insinuating that max strenght is the superior attribute does that not make your statement completely redundant?

No.

The thread starter asks why muscular guys can't hit hard. The answer is that some can. It's unskilled strikers who don't hit well. Some unskilled strikers are muscular, perhaps leading to the misconception. Skill is the major factor in mma (and many sports). Strength and other factors also contribute.

The reason I say "all other things being equal, the stronger person wins" is that this clarifies how wrong the TS's assumption is. If big muscles did make people strike poorly, then of two equally skilled mma fighters, the stronger one would lose. That's typically not true. Strength does help.

Kiwi's "frustration" is due to his misunderstanding or lack of comprehension of what I said, or he's trying to make his own point and creating a strawman of my post by misrepresenting what I said. My point is valid, regardless.

Your attempt to make this about compound lifts is an illustration of the same thing. You have an agenda, and want to make a point, so you have tried to put your own spin on my words so you can disagree with them. That's not honest discussion, my friend.

 

[aries]

I think anyone who believes getting stronger won't increase your punching power is a complete idiot. Rate of Force development is pretty simple stuff. If you want to get faster you need to increase your ability to create force without increasing mass. A lot of strong people are weak punchers because they don't train to punch correctly, but if you take two exact replicas of a person and have one do strength work in addition to his skills work, I guarantee he will be a stronger puncher than the guy who doesn't do strength work.

That said, you're wondering why these guys aren't knocking out the top heavyweight fighters on the planet. Of course they aren't going to knock these guys out with a punch 90% of the time. I guarantee if Lesnar hit you or 90% of the planet in the face, he's breaking your shit. Again, most of that comes down to his training style. Brock hasn't trained to be a striker so his strikes will look weak.


Do you seriously think the heavyweight class is lacking knockout power? These guys are fucking powerful, and they are strong strikers. I don't know of many heavyweights who never strength train.

I don't think you understand rate of force development. To punch hard you need to accelerate a relatively light mass i.e. your fist and arm as quickly as possible. Therefore the 'rate' of force development must be high. If you are really strong you can generate really high forces but not necessarily at a high enough rate to express them in a ballistic motion such as a punch or kick. This is why really strong people can have relatively weak punches, they just can't punch fast enough so their punches end up being more like pushes. To generate high rates of force development the most useful type of strength to develop is starting strength and the next is speed-strength. This is why javelin throwers can throw javelins much further than shot putters even though the shot putters have much higher levels of limit strength which is what most people think of when they speak of strength i.e. what's your 1 RM

 

[DoomPatrol]

I don't think you understand rate of force development. To punch hard you need to accelerate a relatively light mass i.e. your fist and arm as quickly as possible. Therefore the 'rate' of force development must be high. If you are really strong you can generate really high forces but not necessarily at a high enough rate to express them in a ballistic motion such as a punch or kick. This is why really strong people can have relatively weak punches, they just can't punch fast enough so their punches end up being more like pushes. To generate high rates of force development the most useful type of strength to develop is starting strength and the next is speed-strength. This is why javelin throwers can throw javelins much further than shot putters even though the shot putters have much higher levels of limit strength which is what most people think of when they speak of strength i.e. what's your 1 RM

I think I've been very clear that power development comes from speed and limit strength. Proper strength training doesn't necessarily increase mass, it increases your CNS ability and strengthens your muscles. Again, strength training increases power in all your movements and punching is no different. You get stronger, you hit harder. That isn't the same statement as saying just do flat bench and never train proper technique.

 

[PUO3]

Rumble is geneticly gifted and a pretty big guy, but he's not super muscular. Lawler is not either. None of them really has that BB thing going on. Manhoef and Woodley is getting there, Carwin is huge. His power is freakish.

And yes, size can hinder you at a certain point. Not that anyone natural would likely reach that point. I'm not saying that the OP is right, but my post is more in line with the rest of the thread. More strenght does not necessarily equal more punching power and working on that attribute too much might even be detrimental to the overall game of a fighter.

EDIT: I think it's important to put this discussion in the context of the obsession with focusing on/prioritizing the compound lifts. As I mentioned earlier, obviously being weak is no bueno, but I have yet to train with a high level MMA fighter who is not strong, regardless of if they do compounds or not. Surprisingly strong actually.

I feel like you searched for soft pictures but to be totally honest I cant really look beyond reading that Rumble is not super muscular. Hes about as big as you can be while still being able to make the weight class.

I mean, if Brock Lesnar and Pudzilla are the measuring stick than no one is big and muscular.

How about horse meat Reem? Thiago Alves, Te Huna, Marquardt, Lumbard etc. Lot of jacked dudes that can crack.

But I agree. Plenty of fighters are strong as shit without focusing on compound lifts. Grappling is a damn good developer of strength. Compound lifts arent near a top focus for fighters.

 

[Sano]

I feel like you searched for soft pictures but to be totally honest I cant really look beyond reading that Rumble is not super muscular. Hes about as big as you can be while still being able to make the weight class.

I mean, if Brock Lesnar and Pudzilla are the measuring stick than no one is big and muscular.

How about horse meat Reem? Thiago Alves, Te Huna, Marquardt, Lumbard etc. Lot of jacked dudes that can crack.

But I agree. Plenty of fighters are strong as shit without focusing on compound lifts. Grappling is a damn good developer of strength. Compound lifts arent near a top focus for fighters.

I honestly tried to pick pictures that were realistic representations of their size. I mean, not under great lighting with dat instragram pump and filter, nor pictures of them sitting off season on the beach. I think the pictures are fair.

I know what you mean about Brock and Pudz, but I see many roid heads in the gym who are big as fuck, and TS specificly mentioned them as some sort of measurement stick. I think he's talking about that juicehead BB look. But yes, plenty of jacked AND athletic fighters can crack no doubt. I'm definitely on board with the rest of your post as well!

No.

The thread starter asks why muscular guys can't hit hard. The answer is that some can. It's unskilled strikers who don't hit well. Some unskilled strikers are muscular, perhaps leading to the misconception. Skill is the major factor in mma (and many sports). Strength and other factors also contribute.

The reason I say "all other things being equal, the stronger person wins" is that this clarifies how wrong the TS's assumption is. If big muscles did make people strike poorly, then of two equally skilled mma fighters, the stronger one would lose. That's typically not true. Strength does help.

Kiwi's "frustration" is due to his misunderstanding or lack of comprehension of what I said, or he's trying to make his own point and creating a strawman of my post by misrepresenting what I said. My point is valid, regardless.

Your attempt to make this about compound lifts is an illustration of the same thing. You have an agenda, and want to make a point, so you have tried to put your own spin on my words so you can disagree with them. That's not honest discussion, my friend.

Well TS said "super" muscular and mentioned Brock and Pudz. I almost have to agree with him that there seems to be a tendency for really big BB type guys not being able to punch very hard. They seems to push their punches, no snap. I know it's technique as well obviously, but it's rare to see natural hard hitters with that physique. Most people can't punch whether large or small, but I think there is a common misconception by the layman, that the more muscular someone is, the harder they punch. That's not the case.

You are mentioning strenght only (whatever that means in this case), but TS is talking about muscle size. Strenght, mass, speed, power these things are different attributes and all contribute to punching power. Bigger muscles might mean more weight behind punches, but it also might mean slower hands. Big buys are naturally slower and they have to overcome their size with explosiveness, which again not all big muscular guys have. It's very different from person to person.

The "stronger" (again I find it hard to define strenght in this context, how do we measure it? Barbells?) person loses all the time in MMA. Also, this was only in regards to striking, where strenght is less of an importance.

If I've misunderstood your argument I'm sorry. I'm not trying to spin anything, I'm genuinely interested in understanding what you mean. If we both understood you a certain way, perhaps you didn't express yourself clearly enough.

 

[SalvadorAllende]

Neither of those guys has knocked out a single person cold. A TKO is not a knock out.

Pudz hit hard:

BTW a lot has to do with technique, speed, placement, how much you put in your punches, etc.

Punching is way more complicated than press a fist into someone face.

 

[DoomPatrol]

I honestly tried to pick pictures that were realistic representations of their size. I mean, not under great lighting with dat instragram pump and filter, nor pictures of them sitting off season on the beach. I think the pictures are fair.

I know what you mean about Brock and Pudz, but I see many roid heads in the gym who are big as fuck, and TS specificly mentioned them as some sort of measurement stick. I think he's talking about that juicehead BB look. But yes, plenty of jacked AND athletic fighters can crack no doubt. I'm definitely on board with the rest of your post as well!


Well TS said "super" muscular and mentioned Brock and Pudz. I almost have to agree with him that there seems to be a tendency for really big BB type guys not being able to punch very hard. They seems to push their punches, no snap. I know it's technique as well obviously, but it's rare to see natural hard hitters with that physique. Most people can't punch whether large or small, but I think there is a common misconception by the layman, that the more muscular someone is, the harder they punch. That's not the case.

You are mentioning strenght only (whatever that means in this case), but TS is talking about muscle size. Strenght, mass, speed, power these things are different attributes and all contribute to punching power. Bigger muscles might mean more weight behind punches, but it also might mean slower hands. Big buys are naturally slower and they have to overcome their size with explosiveness, which again not all big muscular guys have. It's very different from person to person.

The "stronger" (again I find it hard to define strenght in this context, how do we measure it? Barbells?) person loses all the time in MMA. Also, this was only in regards to striking, where strenght is less of an importance.

If I've misunderstood your argument I'm sorry. I'm not trying to spin anything, I'm genuinely interested in understanding what you mean. If we both understood you a certain way, perhaps you didn't express yourself clearly enough.

Well no shit because you're grossly mistaking bodybuilding/mass for strength training. To pretend like size doesn't matter is just straight fucking silly. There's a reason why lightweights don't have the knockout power that heavyweights do, despite the fact that they are a million times faster. Throwing a punch isn't just about speed, just as it isn't just about strength. Strength training increases all of your energy systems. The bigger the pot, the more you can fill it. Nobody in this subforum is telling people to become a bodybuilder. They are telling you to strengthen the muscle chains that are predominately used in throwing a strike. Hip strength. Leg strength. Back strength. Shoulder girdle. The stronger those are relative to your size, the harder you can punch.


Why fighters continue to act like they are so fucking special compared to the rest of the sports world just makes me die inside. If strength doesn't matter, then why are they taking steroids? It's not just for recovery. Most pro athletes probably don't feel the need to strength train because they've been at that level for years already. As a beginner, your needs are completely different than someone with 20 years on his belt. At some time, they've put the work in to raise their absolute strength the the necessary level.

 

[Sano]

Well no shit because you're grossly mistaking bodybuilding/mass for strength training. To pretend like size doesn't matter is just straight fucking silly. There's a reason why lightweights don't have the knockout power that heavyweights do, despite the fact that they are a million times faster. Throwing a punch isn't just about speed, just as it isn't just about strength. Strength training increases all of your energy systems. The bigger the pot, the more you can fill it. Nobody in this subforum is telling people to become a bodybuilder. They are telling you to strengthen the muscle chains that a predominately used in throwing a strike. Hip strength. Leg strength. Back strength. Shoulder girdle. The stronger those are relative to your size, the harder you can punch.


Why fighters continue to act like they are so fucking special compared to the rest of the sports world just makes me die inside. If strength doesn't matter, then why are they taking steroids? It's not just for recovery. Most pro athletes probably don't feel the need to strength train because they've been at that level for years already. As a beginner, your needs are completely different than someone with 20 years on his belt. At some time, they've put the work in to raise their absolute strength the the necessary level.

I'm not mistaking size for strenght. The premise of this thread was size. I am saying that they are not the same thing.

Obviously HW's are going to hit harder as they have bigger frames and more weight behind the punches, but then again, it's not always the biggest HW's that hit the hardest. There is such a thing as excess muscle mass, but it depends on a lot of factors I agree.

There are two different discussions going on here, it's a little confusing. One is the BB like juicehead guys pushing their punches, the other is whether or not "strenght" training is overrated on here. Before I go on, please define what you mean by strenght training and how you believe that is best pursued for martial arts. Also, if someone does not do the strenght training you think is best, will they be a bad/worse fighter?

 

[DoomPatrol]

I'm not mistaking size for strenght. The premise of this thread was size. I am saying that they are not the same thing.

Obviously HW's are going to hit harder as they have bigger frames and more weight behind the punches, but then again, it's not always the biggest HW's that hit the hardest. There is such a thing as excess muscle mass, but it depends on a lot of factors I agree.

There are two different discussions going on here, it's a little confusing. One is the BB like juicehead guys pushing their punches, the other is whether or not "strenght" training is overrated on here. Before I go on, please define what you mean by strenght training and how you believe that is best pursued for martial arts. Also, if someone does not do the strenght training you think is best, will they be a bad/worse fighter?

Well it's pretty obvious that bodybuilders aren't going to hit as strong as someone is simply stronger at the same weight. The muscular guys in the heavier weight classes only have the muscle because their diet allows it in accordance to how much they are training. All of them prioritize strength over looks, so your question isn't really about size.

Define strength training? It's clearly defined by sports science already. Just go educate yourself. You don't need my opinion on what it is. It's increasing your body's ability to create force. There are a few subsets of strength like speed strength, limit strength, but they are all well served by regular strength training. I.E, major compound barbell movements in a progressive and organized manner to strengthen the major muscle chains. Barbell squat. Deadlift. Overhead Press. Power Clean. Flat Bench. Barbell Rows.

Otherwise you'd be asking why aren't these people knocking everyone out in MMA....

 

[Cmart]

...You are mentioning strenght only (whatever that means in this case), but TS is talking about muscle size...

TS is talking about both muscle size and strength, and in fact mentions strength more. Read the original post.

And everyone who has watched MMA for a while has seen huge, jacked guys who can hit like a ton of bricks. We can all name a dozen of them. I've never seen a bodybuilder make it in, though.

...oh wait, yeah. This guy:

Phil Baroni. A half dozen or more KO and TKO wins in major MMA.

Also, there are even unskilled guys who've made it in to the top levels of MMA just due to their size and strength:

Brock -- college wrestler turns WWE wrestler turns MMA and ends Heath Herring's career with punches. Beats several big names. Can hit, even lacking skill, due to sheer size and strength.

Bob Sapp -- crudely pounds the crap out of two tomato cans in Pride, so they put him up against the world champion, Minotauro Nogueira. Bob nearly wins. Also goes on to major wins in K-1.

James Thompson -- who famously "watched a lot of DVD's" to hone his MMA skill, has knocked out a handful of opponents. He's just a big jacked moron and has amassed a decent MMA record.

I've been around long enough to see the "how come big muscle guys don't hit so hard" thread come up in several iterations. It's a myth, and an easily dismissed one. But you always get the guys who try to steer the conversation with "well if you train just strength and not skill you won't do very well" and "a guy who just trains powerlifting will get beat by a guy with more endurance and skill" and such. Um, yeah no shit. Nobody is here to argue against skill.

But there are definitely arguments for strength. And then you get nitpickers trying to talk about how "limit" strength is inferior to "muscle endurance" and all that. How about just strength. As in, if other factors such as skill and endurance and size and speed are equal, the stronger person will win. Damn near guaranteed. Otherwise, please go ahead and make the case against strength, and let me know which sports it's best to be weaker in.

Again, the idea that being big and strong is a liability is a myth, probably made up by some weakling who wants to feel better about his lack of physical prowess. And see you again in another two months to two years when some other dipshit makes the same thread.

 

[Sano]

Well it's pretty obvious that bodybuilders aren't going to hit as strong as someone is simply stronger at the same weight. The muscular guys in the heavier weight classes only have the muscle because their diet allows it in accordance to how much they are training. All of them prioritize strength over looks, so your question isn't really about size.

Otherwise you'd be asking why aren't these people knocking everyone out in MMA....

I'm going to presume when you say strength training you are talking about the big three and a few other presses. I'm going to presume that you think any fighter not doing that is stupid. I believe you have claimed this before, but correct me if I'm wrong. Otherwise this post is dedicated to anyone else with that opinion, if not only to create a little nuance.

If we are talking about resistance training, obviously every martial artist is doing resistance training. As I said, I've never sparred with or rolled with a high level figher who wasn't very strong. Fighters have been doing strength training since the dawn of fighting.

Karatekas used to carry each other on their backs and use their surroundings to punch or kick or carry.

Wrestlers, grapplers and Judokais use each other as resistance and gymnastic like training.

MT guys and boxers do a lot of BW stuff and explosive work.

Just because it's not barbell work, doesn't mean it's not strenght work. They do thousand and thousand of resisted repetitions. It's not that fighters think they are special, they just know fighting.

Is max strength useful for a fighter? Yes. Can you build strength in many ways? Yes. Are there diminishing returns? Yes.

You claim that fighters are "special" but let's take a few other sports. Would you advice a swimmer to "just keep working on your PL total"? Would he need a 2xBW squat and 3xBW DL to be "good enough"? Would it be smart at all?

For a fighter, I'd grant you that it has to do with style. Someone like Lesnar, who needs to overpower people and take them down, has a lot of use for his freakish strength. Let's not forget he is a very good wrestler too, but I'll grant you that. Style has a lot to do with it. Now, as it pertains to this thread, let's look into size/strenght and punching power. Let's delve into striking:

Joe Fraizer was one of the hardest punchers all time in the HW division. Have you seen the video of him not being able to OHP 170lbs?



What about someone like Joe Lous? One of the hardest hitters ever too, but his training didn't include a heavy bench or DL. What about Marciano?

Let's take a look at Foreman. Now Foreman was a big guy. Let's compare him to a few big and strong guys.

Who do you think has the biggest bench, squat, deadlift, OHP and so forth? And who hits harder? I know it's very pidgeonholed, but bear with me. Foreman is one of the biggest hitters all time, obviously he hits harder. The amount of size and strength wont help the other guys. More barbell strength does not necessarily equal more punching power. Now, let's take it a step further. Let's hypothetically say that Arnold and Brock could train boxing for years and years on end, without loosing their mass. Could they ever hope to hit as hard as Foreman in that case? Not a chance. This is only in the HW division, it's even easier to make a case in the lighter weight classes. Conor McGregor has more power in that left hand than anyone in the FW and LW division, yet he doesn't lift very heavy and isn't very muscular. He's strong no doubt though, but this again pertains to the one kind of training many of you guys deem sacred, heavy compounds. I know I'm cherry picking a little, but it's adding up to an argument.

I could go on with boxers for ages, but I wont. But I'd like to mention Thai fighters. How is it, that the Thais are the best in the world yet they are notorious for not doing any heavy strength training? Would that imply, that any foreigner could just add some heavy squats in their program and they would suddenly start beating them? Then why hasn't it happened yet? Surprise, surprise, the greatest Thai fighter ever didn't need to use heavy barbell training. If only he knew and didn't think he was "special":



You see where I am getting at?

I agree that grappling is a different beast, but even then there are many ways to Rome. Yes, strength is great, but as I said earlier, guys grappling and wrestling ARE strong. They are not some fragile weaklings. Not MMA fighters. We could lower the numbers are say that perhaps a 1,5xBW Squat and 2xBW DL would be reasonable before diminishing returns, but a lot of MMA fighters would be at that strength level already. Compounds are not some magic formula that works better than everything else in the world! It might not seem like it, but I actually like compounds. I do them myself, I think they are great tools! Easy to adjust and very straight forward. I'm not opposed to fighters doing them within reason at all. Quite the contrary. BUT the arrogance of claiming that it's the only way and that you know better than these guys who's been there is not something I can agree with. I do both, so I know both worlds.

 

[DoomPatrol]

I'm going to presume when you say strenght training you are talking about the big three and a few other presses. I'm going to presume that you think any fighter not doing that is stupid. I believe you have claimed this before, but correct me if I'm wrong. Otherwise this post is dedicated to anyone else with that opinion, if not only to create a little nuance.

If we are talking about resistance training, obviously every martial artist is doing resistance training. As I said, I've never sparred with or rolled with a high level figher who wasn't very strong. Fighters have been doing strenght training since the dawn of fighting.

Karatekas used to carry each other on their backs and use their surroundings to punch or kick or carry.

Wrestlers, grapplers and Judokais use each other as resistance and gymnastic like training.

MT guys and boxers do a lot of BW stuff and explosive work.

Just because it's not barbell work, doesn't mean it's not strenght work. They do thousand and thousand of resisted repetitions. It's not that fighters think they are special, they just know fighting.

Is max strenght useful for a fighter? Yes. Can you build strenght in many ways? Yes. Are there diminishing returns? Yes.

You claim that fighters are "special" but let's take a few other sports. Would you advice a swimmer to "just keep working on your PL total"? Would he need a 2xBW squat and 3xBW DL to be "good enough"? Would it be smart at all?

For a fighter, I'd grant you that it has to do with style. Someone like Lesnar, who needs to overpower people and take them down, has a lot of use for his freakish strenght. Let's not forget he is a very good wrestler too, but I'll grant you that. Style has a lot to do with it. Now, as it pertains to this thread, let's look into size/strenght and punching power. Let's delve into striking:

Joe Fraizer was one of the hardest punchers all time in the HW division. Have you seen the video of him not being able to OHP 170lbs?



What about someone like Joe Lous? One of the hardest hitters ever too, but his training didn't include a heavy bench or DL. What about Marciano?

Let's take a look at Foreman. Now Foreman was a big guy. Let's compare him to a few big and strong guys.

Who do you think has the biggest bench, squat, deadlift, OHP and so forth? And who hits harder? I know it's very pidgeonholed, but bear with me. Foreman is one of the biggest hitters all time, obviously he hits harder. The amount of size and strenght wont help the other guys. More barbell strenght does not necessarily equal more punching power. Now, let's take it a step further. Let's hypothetically say that Arnold and Brock could train boxing for years and years on end, without loosing their mass. Could they ever hope to hit as hard as Foreman in that case? Not a chance. This is only in the HW division, it's even easier to make a case in the lighter weight classes. Conor McGregor has more power in that left hand than anyone in the FW and LW division, yet he doesn't lift very heavy and isn't very muscular. He's strong no doubt though, but this again pertains to the one kind of training many of you guys deem sacred, heavy compounds. I know I'm cherry picking a little, but it's adding up to an argument.

I could go on with boxers for ages, but I wont. But I'd like to mention Thai fighters. How is it, that the Thais are the best in the world yet they are notorious for not doing any heavy strenght training? Would that imply, that any foreigner could just add some heavy squats in their program and they would suddenly start beating them? Then why hasn't it happened yet? Surprise, surprise, the greatest Thai fighter ever didn't need to use heavy barbell training. If only he knew and didn't think he was "special":



You see where I am getting at?

I agree that grappling is a different beast, but even then there are many ways to Rome. Yes, strenght is great, but as I said earlier, guys grappling and wrestling ARE strong. They are not some fragile weaklings. Not MMA fighters. We could lower the numbers are say that perhaps a 1,5xBW Squat and 2xBW DL would be reasonable before diminishing returns, but a lot of MMA fighters would be at that strenght level already. Compounds are not some magic formula that works better than everything else in the world! It might not seem like it, but I actually like compounds. I do them myself, I think they are great tools! Easy to adjust and very straight forward. I'm not opposed to fighters doing them within reason at all. Quite the contrary. BUT the arrogance of claiming that it's the only way and that you know better than these guys who's been there is not something I can agree with. I do both, so I know both worlds.

The big movements are the easiest and quickest way to strengthen your main muscle chains for limit strength. Grapplers and fighters aren't raising their limit strength by skills training. They are increasing muscular endurance, which by the way is a byproduct of limit strength training. The best way to increase power is to increase your strength, not speed.

You can't possibly tell me that Foreman is the hardest hitter because he didn't strength train. For one, there's no way to tell how hard he actually hits compared to modern fighters who do proper strength training. Secondly, he may just have been naturally gifted with a high level of limit strength. 99% of people aren't naturally strong, but some are. Those people are more than welcome to slack on strength training.

I'm sorry, but you have zero science to support your theory, and the entire field of sports science behind mine.

And if you think Steven Banks never touched a barbell...... well you're wrong

 

[Sano]

TS is talking about both muscle size and strength, and in fact mentions strength more. Read the original post.

And everyone who has watched MMA for a while has seen huge, jacked guys who can hit like a ton of bricks. We can all name a dozen of them. I've never seen a bodybuilder make it in, though.

...oh wait, yeah. This guy:

Phil Baroni. A half dozen or more KO and TKO wins in major MMA.

Also, there are even unskilled guys who've made it in to the top levels of MMA just due to their size and strength:

Brock -- college wrestler turns WWE wrestler turns MMA and ends Heath Herring's career with punches. Beats several big names. Can hit, even lacking skill, due to sheer size and strength.

Bob Sapp -- crudely pounds the crap out of two tomato cans in Pride, so they put him up against the world champion, Minotauro Nogueira. Bob nearly wins. Also goes on to major wins in K-1.

James Thompson -- who famously "watched a lot of DVD's" to hone his MMA skill, has knocked out a handful of opponents. He's just a big jacked moron and has amassed a decent MMA record.

I've been around long enough to see the "how come big muscle guys don't hit so hard" thread come up in several iterations. It's a myth, and an easily dismissed one. But you always get the guys who try to steer the conversation with "well if you train just strength and not skill you won't do very well" and "a guy who just trains powerlifting will get beat by a guy with more endurance and skill" and such. Um, yeah no shit. Nobody is here to argue against skill.

But there are definitely arguments for strength. And then you get nitpickers trying to talk about how "limit" strength is inferior to "muscle endurance" and all that. How about just strength. As in, if other factors such as skill and endurance and size and speed are equal, the stronger person will win. Damn near guaranteed. Otherwise, please go ahead and make the case against strength, and let me know which sports it's best to be weaker in.

Again, the idea that being big and strong is a liability is a myth, probably made up by some weakling who wants to feel better about his lack of physical prowess. And see you again in another two months to two years when some other dipshit makes the same thread.

The problem is defining strength within the realm of combat sports. How strong do you need to be? How do we measure the strenght? Does the strength we measured directly translate to punching power?

Again, this argument that "all else being equal" is ridicules. Obviously that is true. You could say that with every attribute. The question is, will focusing too much on strength diminish other abilities? It might. There is recovery time to consider, and time to hone your other abilities. Anyway, that's really besides the point.

The point isn't that big and strong guys can't hit hard. The point is that a heavy benchpress and DL doesn't necessarly transfer to hitting harder, more than other forms of training do. The point is that there are diminishing returns on doing that kind of strength work as well, which should be considered. You've given some examples of fighters who did well and had decent power all things considered, yet I could list countless of examples of guys who were a lot less "strong" (again, measured by compounds I'm guessing) who punched infinitely harder and with more success. That tells me that there might be other factors who are equally, or more, important. Again, no one is argueing for fighters being weak. I don't believe they are either. Especially not within the realm of their sports. It's about creating a nuanced picture.

 

[Sano]

The big movements are the easiest and quickest way to strengthen your main muscle chains for limit strength. Grapplers and fighters aren't raising their limit strength by skills training. They are increasing muscular endurance, which by the way is a byproduct of limit strength training. The best way to increase power is to increase your strength, not speed.

You can't possibly tell me that Foreman is the hardest hitter because he didn't strength train. For one, there's no way to tell how hard he actually hits compared to modern fighters who do proper strength training. Secondly, he may just have been naturally gifted with a high level of limit strength. 99% of people aren't naturally strong, but some are. Those people are more than welcome to slack on strength training.

I'm sorry, but you have zero science to support your theory, and the entire field of sports science behind mine.

And if you think Steven Banks never touched a barbell...... well you're wrong

You sound like a broken record. Muscular endurance is a by product of limit strenght lol okay. They shouldn't even bother grappling huh? You sound like someone who has never rolled hard. The adaptions are completely different. I can also promise you that when you are working against a grown man there are positions where you are using what I guess you would consider a magical 70-90% of your 1RM in that particular motion. "The best way to increase power is to increase your strenght"? What, punching power? That's not necessarily true. You have a completely simplistic way of looking at things. Doing plyos, chopping wood or working on speed strenght might be a lot better for your power production. Not to mention technique, technique, technique. Another poster gave a pretty good example in this thread; why are javelin throwers smaller than shotputters?

You are of the mindset that the human body only gets stronger by touching metal. Resistance is not anything that resists against the muscle contractions, but it's only a barbell.

I never said Foreman was the hardest hitter because he didn't strenght train. Also he did strenght train, don't know if he did compounds. I used him as an example of why having high numbers is not the best indicator of punching power. You conveniently skipped all my points and arguments. I put some time into that post.

What is it exactly that I have zero evidence for and what is it that you have all the evidence for?

 

[TheeFaulted]

This thread is stupid.

 

[selfcritical]

The unloaded nature of striking plays into this a lot. When the gloves weigh 1 lb, having advantages in rate of force development matters a lot more than peak force. If human fists weighed as much as shot puts, the impact of maximum strength on punching power would be more direct.

Similarly, the impact of maximum strength on say, Judo or wrestling is a lot greater than it is on boxing. (This isn't a hard theory to test. Check the maximum force that an average elite judoka can produce vs an average elite boxer, and it's night and day)

 

[Pitbull]

Joe Fraizer was one of the hardest punchers all time in the HW division. Have you seen the video of him not being able to OHP 170lbs?

That was funny. It wasn't a lack of strength but was very poor form. I haven't ever seen anyone do an overhead press so badly before!

 

[j123]

Keep it coming guys, this is Starting Strength > all : version 2

Spoiler

That aside, I know the thread is based around punching/striking, but these type of discussions all end up the same. Power and impact gets brought into the mix alot, but fighting is more than just power and speed. Timing and distance management are more important elements than heavy hitting in terms of striking. This applies to clinching as well, its also why you see a 110-150lb Thai toss around and ragdoll larger guys easily. Their timing and "awareness" is on a whole another level.

Strength will no doubt have a better carry over to grappling. Striking is so and so. Over there, being taller is the more important attribute since the taller striker controls 2/3 distances.

I'll always favor strength training and development, especially with the great results I've had this year, but to say that your totals on the big 3 is better than everything else in striking, is stretching it by a wide margin.